(July 2, 2017 at 6:49 am)Little Henry Wrote:(July 2, 2017 at 6:25 am)JackRussell Wrote: I fully admit this a paraphrase of a discussion I heard between Tracie Harris and Matt Dillahunty, but it does closely follow my own thoughts.
Moral assessments are subjective. I may subjectively decide that rape is fine, but if I carry out that action my behaviour is objectively morally wrong as I have inflicted harm on another. My opinion is unimportant, it is the action that holds moral weight and with it societal consequences.
Some moral assessments are very hard: abortion, euthanasia etc; A secular system seeks to refine and better understand the problem. Divine morality is just unchanging fiat, with an imperfect human thinking he can understand the moral pronouncements of a god and declare them good. How could they know?
This OM +god is another god of the gaps argument trying to push god into a convenient area because it is a difficult discussion.
Ok, so you subscribe to objective morality?
Well, it's kind of semantics to me. If you can agree that morality is about wellbeing, then I guess anything that goes against the wellbeing of another is wrong. I am not arguing necessarily of the absoluteness of it: is it wrong to kill or is it wrong to murder? I am saying morality is situational, but you can make moral pronouncements from the point of view of wellbeing.
